Sunday, January 13, 2008

Thegloriousinternationalshaming of the Alberta Human Rights Commission by the righteous Ezra Levant continues. With Levant and Mark Steyn on their plates, and hordes of YouTube/blog fans finding out about these thuggish, third-world-worthy Commissions for the first time, Canada's Human Rights goon squads might finally have found prey that will choke them. Do Not Resuscitate.

"Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo, the most heinous criminals in this country -- the state cannot order them to apologize. It's cruel and unusual punishment. A convicted murderer cannot be ordered to apologize, but a convicted publisher can be ordered by the state to apologize. I'll rot in hell before I use my mouth to say that fascist's (Soharwardy's) words with you as his instrument to compel me to do so."

It makes me dream of a Canada where Ezra Levant would represent the Right, and Marc Emery the Left. We need more Canadians like them raising these kinds of delightfully rude, over-the-top, articulate and uncompromising publicity campaigns against illegitimate organs like the Human Rights bureaucracies.

"Do not confuse appeasement with tactfulness or generosity. Appeasement is not consideration for the feelings of others, it is consideration for and compliance with the unjust, irrational, and evil feelings of others. It is a policy of exempting the emotions of others from moral judgment, and of willingness to sacrifice innocent, virtuous victims to the malice of such emotions."

15
comments:

Elaine
said...

You know it is comical this everything offends muslims pop culture thingmabob.

The more they cry I'm offended someone must die, the more infidels take up the cause to offend them. The more the muslims are offended, the nuttier they get.Soharwardy does the muslim community no favours by depicting its members as nuttier than fruitcakes with his frivilous claim of being insulted.

Who has not seen the cartoons and the reaction of the hierarchy of the muslim community to them, that hasn't came to the only logicial conculusion that islam is a deranged religion, that was built on oppression and downright silliness.

Elaine, pace the human rights commission, people could claim that Star Trek is a load of crap, or that its fans are inherently nerdier than Star Wars fans. Or vice versa. I don't care about Star Wars or Star Trek or the feelings of their fans.

All I care about is that I and other non-fans be left alone to laugh at, be laughed at, "offend" and "be offended by" the nerds -- or shake their hands and buy them a new set of Spock ears, if I see fit. Those vulnerable to that type of programming should just watch their favoured show in their own houses of fanship, and leave me and my government out of it.

The Human Rights Commission lends such fan-boy squabbles over fantasy characters an unseemly air of reality and dignity that has no place in the coercive realm of the state.

I'm not interested in hearing about how awesome Captain Picard is, and reserve the right to respond with derision. I don't believe; I don't care if you believe; but I do care if you use the police to make me say "Na noo na noo", or whatever his line is.

To me it is just nuts that it is even going before any government body.

It is like the Santa Claus believers demanding their pound of flesh, coz someone pointed out the obvious. That Santa is a fat ass.

Pulling someone into a kangaroo court on account they dissed some backward barbaric supernatural deity is just so fucking nuts.

All it is going to do is have the infidels, who basically ignored islam and its very strange teachings, be aware of what exactly it means. I don't think anyone much cared that muslims just oppressed their own, they won't like it when they realize they want to oppress everyone else too.

I think of when the jehovah's come to your door. They are told to fuck off more often then not. Do you see them dragging anyone in front of a star chamber?

islam better get used to the idea, that they will be made fun of because of their strange religious traditions, just as any other religion is.

eng, I don't believe that "hate literature" is the business of the government. I'm on record as saying so, all the way back to 1990.

Publish away. I prefer to use my own bullshit detector rather than the Party's, since it has always proved reliable on stuff like this.

For example, I foresaw, correctly, that so-called "hate speech" and "human rights" laws would be used in completely self-interested ways by gangsters to silence good people: and that the naive would support such silencing by likening the good people to Holocaust deniers.

(No biggie. That was and is about as obvious an insight as the suspicion that spilled sugar might eventually attract ants.)

eng you are in here. I happen to think you are full of shit and down a quart, when it comes to your belief in global warming.

Nothing you have said has convinced me to don a tinfoil hat and join you out in the snowstorms protesting economic growth.

That said, I have no problem with people believing what they believe as long as it doesn't cause hardship in my life.

I by no means hate you for your belief in the great goracle. It is just that I don't, I can't. I try and base everything on logic, and gut feeling.

I have to question, ridicule, and make fun of your beliefs. This will either make you come up with some facts to defend your belief, or it will just make you spin. Either way, I get amusement out of it.

eng you are in here. I happen to think you are full of shit and down a quart, when it comes to your belief in global warming.

Why is everything you are opposed to treated as a "belief"? Isn't everything you are in favour of also a "belief"? I suppose it makes it easier to dismiss anyone who doesn't toe your party line, and lets you avoid the unpleasant necessity of thinking.

Nothing you have said has convinced me to don a tinfoil hat and join you out in the snowstorms protesting economic growth.

That's good. I hope nothing I have said has convinced you to climb on your roof and bark at the moon either. I will be very glad I have not convinced you to shovel snow in a bathing suit, or mow the lawn in a skidoo suit. Is there any other nutty activity that you would like to project on me by saying that I have not convinced you to do it?

Why would I want to protest economic growth? I would like economic growth to continue, and it will not continue in a world that is experiencing runaway global warming. I'd like to deal with the possibility, rather than watch everyone fight over the last scraps of whatever might be left when it is too late.

Unlike you, I am quite aware that my view could yet prove wrong. But we should be treating it like the IPCC could be right, i.e. "it is likely that half the observed warming is caused by human activity". That means doing the research, making better ways to do things, instead of making excuses to not even look at it.

That said, I have no problem with people believing what they believe as long as it doesn't cause hardship in my life.

Tell me about it. Your beliefs are causing hardship in my life. What a boneheaded argument!

I by no means hate you for your belief in the great goracle. It is just that I don't, I can't.

You're referring to Al Gore, right? Your pet name for him follows your theme of treating everything you don't like as some weird religious belief. I've never seen his movie or read his book, so I don't see how I can be a "goracle believer" except in your own wild projections.

I try and base everything on logic, and gut feeling.

I'm sure you do. You certainly don't base it on science or by looking at anything beyond the end of your own nose.

I have to question, ridicule, and make fun of your beliefs.

At least you understand your own pathology.

This will either make you come up with some facts to defend your belief, or it will just make you spin.

I usually roll, not spin, when I am laughing uncontrollably at your silliness. Rolling on the floor is safer.

Either way, I get amusement out of it.

On this we agree. You are most entertaining to bicker with. I actually don't like changing peoples' minds. Since teasing retarded people is unkind, I stick with watching the spluttering and fuming of high functioning loonies like yourself.

So mike, do we just have to put up with full page ads telling us all about how Jews murder babies to use the blood to make purim cookies? And about how they were behind 9-11? And so we can learn the truth about the alleged death camps and the supposed holocaust? It's been quite a profitable industry for the verdammt juden, nein?

Wouldn't it be ironic if Ezra the Jew destroys the laws that keep our neo-nazis from cranking out the hate above ground? We could then import all the Syrian textbooks and use them in the Keegstra bin Laden School of Hate.

Or is the holocaust just one of those "there's two sides to every story" things and we should just shut up and give them a megaphone?

I can see your point about HRCs being used to bully people. But I think having the single issue "God hates fags" and "Jews are evil" dominating discourse doesn't do any good.

Please eng, don't be so fucking dumb. You know that Mike and the crew would eat them alive. Sort of like why the socialist don't come here much. Their tinfoil tinhorn bleating is chewed up and spit back in their face.

All you got to do is use logic to rip their stupid fantasies apart, and the next thing you know they are running to a hrc...oh yeah I forgot, they are now defunct.

My objection to the Human Rights Commissions isn't first that they operate against the idea of free speech -- it's that they don't obey the ancient rules of evidence and reason that have applied and worked well in real courts for many hundreds of years. Those have worked better than pretty much anything else anyone has ever tried anywhere -- and better than the old HRC-style "appointed body makes arbitrary judgments and penalties under colour of law", which has pretty much been the rule everywhere since the stone age.

The HRC fines people based on ad hoc criteria, for the mental states of a third parties. How do you defend against the accusation of causing a feeling? How do you prove or disprove an emotion or what caused it, or prove to another what a past state of mind was?

But to begin with, as Levant reminds us with his delightful Fuck you very much to the AHRC, why should anyone have to? They're not real courts.

So mike, do we just have to put up with full page ads...

Why do you, or why would you, blatantly perpetuate that stuff? Which nerve were you aiming for, exactly?

I can't know your motives.

Anybody can make up nightmare scenarios about the horrible things everyone else might say, (and indeed save everyone else the trouble by saying them themselves) -- but I can match you scare for scare.

In a world where newspapers accept full page ads like that in the face of their subscribers and advertisers, and stay in business, do you really think the fundamentally lawless Human Rights Commission would be a bulwark against anything?

Thinking along those lines, one wonders whether HRCs might more likely find themselves increasingly used, say, to arrange costly procedures and levy fines against discriminatory newspapers, i.e., those refusing to accept such articles. We assume, of course, a complaint pitched properly according to the zeitgeist -- one closer to our own than one in which newspapers print you enumeration above.

(And why make trouble reporting with too harsh of a spin on that, you other newspapers! Don't burn any bridges.)

I could volley forever on censorship in imagined realms, but the past is more instructive than imagination here. Can you give me a concrete time when censorship was used to *keep* the people from becoming bigoted nationalists?

I sympathize with your desire for genocidal ideologues to be silenced. Among reasons to want censorship by unaccountable troikas operating outside of law, those aren't the worst IMO. But there's no reason to expect leaving such a tool around to lead to anything but the point of view that seizes the commission eventually...

...dominating discourse...

If the ground is fertile for that, a Human Rights Commission only adds an extra way to restrict the discourse further.

And -- dominating discourse? In 2008? Come on. You live in London, Ontario, right? You don't really believe that that is what would dominate here if the human rights bodies were abolished.

I have never used the word "discourse" so many times in so few paragraphs. I feel ashamed, but I can't prove it.

The msm won't cover this, and these women need help. It is not like we infidel females, when we speak up. These muslim females have a great chance of really getting hurt. If they get it out in the media, with all eyes on them, they have a better chance of not dying. Please put it in here at least.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/inside-syed-soharwardys-mosque.html

Also please cover this videof from sda. Let's help these women bring a semblance of sanity to islam.